The introduction of performance measurements (QJD, CTEP, etc.) has brought to network the same impacts as they have had in the call and support centers: An environment where the full focus of the business has turned inward on the employees in the apparent belief that merely by measuring what each employee does in 15 minute increments, the business will somehow improve. 

While actual discipline of employees due to not meeting these standards is a fraction of a percent of the total work force, for our members it is the fear of discipline that is driving an almost pervasive environment of mistrust. People feel compelled to work through breaks and lunches and taking short cut upon short cut just to meet the numbers. 

In some areas, the almost constant series of investigations and documented discussions has employees carrying notebooks and recording what they do, everyday, from the time they go on the clock, until they check out and go home. All to ensure that they can account for where they were and what they were doing 3 months ago. 

This invariably leads to the question of what is the Union going to do about it. How do we address fear? The discipline is addressed through the grievance and arbitration process. 

Some have suggested that we demand negotiations on the Plan. In California, the members at Verizon who are facing these exact issues are demanding just that. Our members have rejected this in the past as that once we agree to a number; there is no longer any discussion as to just cause. If you meet the number, you stay employed. If you don't meet the number, you don't stay employed.

It is true that by law and contract, management has certain rights to formulate and enforce rules, direct the workforce, maintain efficiency and ensure the health and safety of employees. That right includes their ability to hold employees to a reasonable standard of productivity. I don't believe that any of us questions or has issue with that. The issue for us and an additional obligation for the employer is whether the standard is "achievable on its face and in its application." 

Unlike the call centers where the actual results are regularly provided to the District, the actual data surrounding the Network programs is not. The only piece of hard data we've seen is over a year old - February 2006, courtesy of one of the Locals. In looking at that report, of the 5,839 technicians covered by the report (QJD), 3,285 of them (56.30%) were "below standard". In looking at the grievance data base for that same period of time, 3,285 people were not on a step of discipline meaning apparently that their job performance was satisfactory? 

I’ve requested the QJD results regionally by senior VP level and by Director level to see what the actual results were since February 2006. We’ll share that information with the Locals once it comes in. We’ll then sit down with our counsel to determine what options we have. 

We understand the need to address this issue head on, in whatever format we can. We are working up a plan for a series of regional mobilization activities to inform Qwest of our members concerns.

Should you have any questions, please let us know.        

RWR:vk opeiu5/afl-cio